In what could be one of her final moves as the federal government’s top Supreme Court litigator, Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger asked the justices last week. Significantly reducing the powers of lower court judges To block federal laws and policies. If the court accepts his invitation, the biggest immediate beneficiary could be President-elect Donald Trump, as the court’s decision would limit judges’ ability to stop Trump administration policies, even if those policies are illegal.
It is reported as a case Garland v. Texas Top Cop ShopAnd the stakes are potentially huge. In it, a federal trial judge, relying on highly dubious reasoning, struck down a federal law requiring many businesses to disclose their owners to the federal government. If the Supreme Court upholds this judge’s reasoning, it will be a constitutional earthquake, as the trial judge’s opinion attacks Congress’ broad power to regulate business and the economy.
That result is probably unlikely, however, because the trial judge’s opinion is so poorly reasoned.
Yet, even assuming that the Court does not use this case to drastically rework the balance of power between Congress and private business, Top cop shop Still pretty high. That’s because the judge in the case, Amos Mazant, issued a “nationwide injunction” to prevent the federal government from enforcing ownership-reporting laws against anyone. Now the Court can limit the power of lower-ranking federal judges like Majant to issue decisions that make rules for the nation as a whole.
The question of whether a single federal trial judge should have the power to strike down a federal law or policy throughout the country is hotly contested. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 opinion arguing against the nationwide ban, “There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts and subject to review in 12 regional appellate courts.” If nationwide injunctions were allowed, any one of these district judges could potentially stop any federal law, even if every judge in the country disagreed with them.
The problem is particularly acute in federal courts in Texas (Magant sits on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas), where local rules often allow plaintiffs to choose which judge will hear their cases. During the Biden administration, Republicans often chose highly partisan judges to hear challenges to liberal federal policies — and those judges often rewarded this behavior by issuing nationwide sanctions.
Such injunctions could potentially be lifted by a higher court, but the process of seeking relief from such a court could take weeks or even months — and that’s assuming the appeals court is interested in following the law. Federal cases outside of Texas, for example, are appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is dominated by right-wing justices who often overrule Supreme Court precedents that do not favor the Republican Party.
Moreover, while some Republican justices such as Gorsuch have expressed skepticism about these nationwide bans, the GOP-controlled Supreme Court has often allowed such bans against the Biden administration to remain in effect for months — even as most justices ultimately conclude that policy is at issue in these cases, which is often the case. Controversy over immigration policy involved, was legal. So the Court clearly did not view ending the practice of nationwide sanctions as a high priority unless those mandates thwarted democratic principles.
Now, however, Republican Donald Trump is about to take power. And the Biden administration is still asking the Supreme Court to limit the power of lower courts to block Trump’s policies. For this reason, the court’s judgment Top cop shop It could be one of the most significant cases of the next few years, as it could greatly increase Trump’s ability to implement policies that federal courts determine are illegal.
What are the larger legal issues? Top cop shop?
Amid extensive legal disputes Top cop shop Very silly, because the federal law in this case is clearly constitutional.
Top cop shop involved Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which Congress first enacted as part of a broader national defense bill in the waning days of the Trump administration. In enacting that law, Congress found that “criminal actors seek to conceal their ownership” of corporations and other businesses to “facilitate illegal activities” such as money laundering, terrorist financing and various forms of fraud. Accordingly, the law requires a wide range of businesses to disclose their owners.
Broadly speaking, the CTA requires companies to disclose the identity of any owners who “Exercises considerable control“over the business, or who own or control not less than 25 percent of the ownership interest in the entity.” The law contains several exceptions, including one for corporations and other business entities that are not “actively engaged in business”.
Mazzant, a right-wing Obama recruit who was Proposed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). As part of a bipartisan agreement, the ruling ruled that the CTA is unconstitutional because it exceeds the authority of Congress.”Regulates trade between several statesBut this argument is ridiculous.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress’s authority over interstate commerce allows it to regulate any activity that “Significantly affects interstate commerce“The CTA regulates the activity of owning and operating a business — something that obviously affects interstate commerce because businesses exist for the sole purpose of engaging in commercial activity.
Court precedents, moreover, do not permit Congress to regulate discrete activities affecting interstate commerce. Power of Congress”Expands on such activities only when combined with other similar activities” This means that if a particular business does not have a significant effect on interstate commerce, Congress can still regulate that business as long as all businesses in the United States, taken as a whole, have such an effect.
Thus, in order to strike down this statute, a judge must conclude that all businesses in the United States combined do not have a significant effect on interstate commerce. It is absurd.
To be sure, this is the same Supreme Court that recently said Trump is allowed to use the power of the presidency to commit crimes. So there is no guarantee that these judges will not accept ridiculous legal arguments. Yet, the Supreme Court would have to completely overturn the existing law to strike down the CTA.
Courts can use the case to challenge a nationwide ban if they wish
Because the original legal arguments against the CTA are moot, the Court could simply block the Mazant decision and reaffirm long-standing rules governing congressional regulation of private business. That said, in the brief to the justices, the Biden administration suggests they could also take and use a different path Top cop shop To rein in nationwide bans.
Justices can usually decide which legal issues they want to address and which they want to postpone until another day. So, like a case Top cop shopWhere a lower court has both imposed an overly broad injunction and struck down a federal statute on erroneous grounds, the court may choose to consider either of these factors.
The case against this ban, at least when issued by federal trial judges, is straightforward. Recall Gorsuch’s argument that there are more than a thousand federal trial judges in the country, each of whom could potentially issue a nationwide ban that no other judge would uphold.
This issue, Gorsuch wrote in 2020, created “asymmetrical” spots where a plaintiff challenging a federal law or policy would only need to find a judge anywhere in the country to win a court order that at least temporarily blocks that policy. Meanwhile, “Any new government policy hopes to implement could face the long odds of an outright sweep, turning a 94-to-0 victory in the District Court into a 12-to-0 victory in the Court of Appeals.”
As an alternative to nationwide injunctions, Gorsuch argued, trial judges should issue more limited orders that allow plaintiffs in a particular case — and only those plaintiffs — to ignore a federal law or policy while the court order is in effect. As Gorsuch wrote, sanctions are meant to “redress the injury caused by a particular plaintiff in a particular case,” not to allow a lower-ranking judge to determine national policy.
Unsurprisingly, both Democratic and Republican administrations have urged judges to rein in these restrictions. A May 2019 speechFor example, then-Attorney General William Barr argued that the nationwide bans reflected “not only a departure from historically settled limitations. [constitutional separation of powers]But also from our traditional understanding of the court’s role.” And as the preamble brief shows, the Biden administration is so frustrated by the sanctions that it’s even asking the court to Do something about them on the way out the door.
The Republican Supreme Court did little to limit the nationwide ban when a Democratic administration was the target of that order. But, now that a Republican president is about to take office, it’s possible that this court will finally address an issue that both political parties agree is serious.
If that happens, the most immediate beneficiary will be Donald Trump. But a Supreme Court decision to limit the power of judges like Magant to set federal policy could benefit all future presidents, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.
